Many Jesuits have been lukewarm at best ...the distrust stems from Francis's six years as Jesuit provincial of Argentina ...He was fiercely opposed to liberation theology.

"As a provincial, he was extremely strict and fairly conservative, which goes against the grain of the society," said [historian Michael] Walsh.

Fr. Jose Maria Sang, who recalls his former mentor as an earnest, well-prepared teacher with a strong spiritual orientation, also believes that those seeking to pigeonhole the new pope as conservative or progressive are missing the point.

"These terms are political, not religious," he said. "It is better to look at what Bergoglio has done since becoming a bishop  the concern he has shown for the poor and for street dwellers."

Francis... is a familiar figure in a giant slum in Buenos Aires where 45,000 people live in extreme poverty. For 15 years, Bergoglio rode the bus, and then walked in normal priest's robes through the dangerous neighbourhood to celebrate mass...

"I would say you'd find a photo of him in 60% of the homes in 21-24," said Father Juan Isasmendi... "He is a true man of God, he baptised so many children, he gave communion himself to thousands here....he was a father to so many people, a father to us priests."

Then-Cardnal Bergoglio on bus in Buenos Aires

Despite his missionary vigour, however  and a readiness to engage with the secular world Francis remains an outspoken opponent of abortion, divorce, women's rights and euthanasia.

"A pregnant woman is not carrying a toothbrush in her womb, or a tumour," he once said. "Science shows us that the entire genetic code is present from conception. It's not therefore a religious issue, but scientifically based morality, because we are in the presence of a human being."

I usually avoid the Guardian, the most left-wing major-circulation rag in the UK, but this one sorta captured their category confusion: Pope Francis is conservative "but" he's close to the poor; he engages the secular world "but" he's spiritual; he's a missionary "but" "despite that" he's "an outspoken opponent of abortion, divorce, women's rights and euthanasia."

The more they look at this taxonomically-challenging specimen --- like an exotic life-form discovered on a different planet --- the more I like this guy Jorge Bergoglio.

He doesn’t want women to be priests, so he opposes women’s rights? I assume this is what its talking about, as abortion is already mentioned. Since when is it a ‘right’ to be a priest? Our world is beyond crazy.

The articles by media people who are without virtue or spirituality trying to judge the Holy Father is ridiculous. The only thing evident from this confused and almost incoherent article is that the author is totally ignorant of holiness and is trying pigeonhole the Pope into a place in his political order.

The term “harsh and unbending” would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. “Harsh and unbending” means having strong moral values and standing by them.

The secular media just cannot understand that a person can hold principled convictions about the poor and rejected along with the belief that government is not the answer to life’s problems and evils. To them, a secular, humanistic “compassion”, which is really about control and power, is the only way “help.”

St.John Damascene, an educated, devout 7th century Christian saint who observed Muslims at close hand all his life, astutely reported that the Koran is a mash-up of garbled and fragmentary notions from the Jewish Scriptures, the Christian Scriptures, and other sources. He observed Islam to be a heretical offshoot of Christianity.

Here's a list of figures common to the Muslim and Christian scriptures. In each case, like a photoshopped picture: the same figure, but with features missing, added, distorted.

Identity? No. But points of comparison. Maybe like a photoshopped picture of the same entity, yet comprehensively altered, warped. Nobody--- certainly not Pope Francis --- would say they were identical.

Last week, Pope Francis received a collection of world religious leaders in his first ecumenical and interreligious event. His address to them contained diplomatic niceties and specific expressions of good will aimed at Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims.

His remarks to the latter recognized that Muslims worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon him in prayer. In this he echoed the 1964 dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, which gave a nod to the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Now, both Lumen Gentium 16 and Pope Franciss words have a pastoral rather than doctrinal purpose. Their aim is to build interreligious bridges by generously acknowledging whatever can be found to be true in other faithsnot to make precise pronouncements about their theology. That said, Lumen Gentium is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, and even casual statements from a pope (be it this one from Francis or similar ones made by his predecessors) shouldnt be taken lightly.

I greet and thank cordially all of you, dear friends belonging to other religious traditions; firstly the Muslims, who worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon Him in prayer. I really appreciate your presence, and in it I see a tangible sign of the wish to grow in recipricol trust and in cooperation for the common good of humanity.

20
posted on 03/27/2013 10:25:51 PM PDT
by BlueDragon
(the beatings will continue until morale improves)

What lies? besides...here on the religion forum calling other thread participants liars is prohibited, for reason that those sort of accusations lead to flamewars.

As example, I won't say that you yourself were lying when you were directly insinuating that another was lying, but more properly point out, in this instance I am persuaded to believe, you were merely incorrect.

So ease up on the hair trigger defensive response mechanism...and don't look now...but you just shot yourself in the foot. BWAAHAHHAA.

Look both ways before crossing the street maybe? And leave the flamebaiting accusations AT HOME.

Don't you agree that the Muslims hold many distorted beliefs and wrong concepts about the Creator of all things of whom they speak?

I think you described it well. There was one biblical figure left out of your list that is significant to Islam. They put that person, a son after the manner of flesh, a literal bastard, in the place of the son after the manner of promise.

I'll put a link here to Genesis 22 though I'm confident that you know that story.

For centuries, the Muslims have contended the scripture was changed. It's a nonsensical claim, for there are more than enough existing copies of Genesis which pre-exist Muhammed by centuries.

Unsubstantiated horsecrap is permitted to stand while those who call it out are not?

But the evidence was presented on this thread BEFORE my own reply to you...all you would have to do is to have scrolled up just a teensy bit, and the direct quote was right above the reply I sent to you. How about a little acknowledgement of your own error, huh?Or is that too much to ask.

If theres proof, I want to see it. No proof - it should be taken down.

There was proof. But even if there wasn't, you don't get to get your way, and have posts removed just because they rub you the wrong way. Remove yourself from the religion forum if you can't handle it.

33
posted on 03/28/2013 8:00:53 AM PDT
by BlueDragon
(the beatings will continue until morale improves)

I would like to see one thread where the discussion stays on the topic

That would be nice. But who then would be bound? Yourself?

rather then opening up the thread, and seeing the second post engaging in the usual muckraking.

So now it's downgraded to muckraking? Whatever happened to it being "a lie"?

This is why we have Caucus threads in the first place,

This isn't a caucus thread, noOb. See to it when behind those walls there is no sniping at others, no denegrations, no idle comments concerning others. The Mormons had their caucus priviliges pulled for just such sort of monkeying around.

... so that we can actually read and enjoy them. If you dont like the Pope

I don't have anything particular dislike of the current occupant of that office, nor much the previous either. Stop with the mind reading and attributing motive. Those sort of things also lead to flamewars.

- please go somewhere else.

Just where do you get off?

34
posted on 03/28/2013 8:14:30 AM PDT
by BlueDragon
(the beatings will continue until morale improves)

Yeah, but they have to be careful how they say it (or heads will quite literally roll).

So such kind comments towards Islamic people themselves as have been highlighted should be seen in wider context...

I don't know that the way several successive popes in a row have spoken towards Muslims is altogether wrong. There is much to be consider.

One thing I do know...that even as there are a great many Muslims who can be easily agitated & stirred up, those fields are also ripe to the harvest. 'Trouble is...one has to be very careful how they go about scything, for there are some hard stony places that can set off sparks when hit, starting fires that burn in bad ways...

38
posted on 03/28/2013 8:46:13 AM PDT
by BlueDragon
(the beatings will continue until morale improves)

worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon him in prayer. - note that that says the Moslems say they worship this. And also note that it does not say that they worship the same God as us. A fine point, cutting short of saying they worship the same God as us.

They say they are monotheists and worship One god, worship a living god and worship a merciful god. The statement affirms that they do worship a one god, but does not say they worship the same God as us.

Islam in my opinion needs to be destroyed militarily. Not a very Christian idea, but we need to nuke Mecca and Medina.

islam believes in triumphalism -- and you can't blame them for thinking that as Islam until the 19th century was one of continuous triumphs

Mohammed got lucky in the 7th century and burst on the scene just when the Romans and the Persians had bled each other nearly to death. The Roman army in Egypt and Syria hadn't been paid for a century and the united Arabs could walk in and take over

They then swept in a massive blitzkrieg into north AFrica, Hispania, Sicily, even southern Italy

The Arabs then consolidated and by the 10th century they were losing out with the Romans winning back lands, but then they started converting Turks and the turkic bloodthirstiness combined with Islamic fervor was able to push into the Balkans

Their losses to the Slavs from 1683 through to the Russians crushing the Turks and Iranis in the 1700s and 1800s was shocking, but not shocking enough

The Moslems burned Edessa, the holiest center of the Assyrian Church of the East. They conquered Alexandria, once THE central point of Christendom, then the spiritual center of Oriental Orthodoxy. They conquered Constantinople, the center of Eastern Orthodoxy

Now they hit Western Christendom

We need to hit back and straight at the heart of the beast -- Mecca and Medina.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.